Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-04-30
DRY AND SPARKLING.
DR.. Ha milton riffin's Examfna-
tim SIN Going On

DR.. Hamilton Griffin, on charge OF OF
tanning money by false pretences, seen
to attract considerable attention, ii tn
attendance at Justice Austin's Cour
room yesterday can be taken as an II
dication. The case appears, also, to
of great ength, and it is likely to b
continued through a great portion OF to
day. Except for short time early i
the morning, it Consumed all OF tn
Courts attention yesterday, and was a
times quite interesting The first wit
ness yesterday was o. FL. Rowland, who
testified that the Doctor asked him t.
allow his name to be placed on lis
for the purpose of organizing company
This witness did but he had never beer
a stockholder. He said that it wai
sometimes customary for business mer
| to o'Eiw their names to be used fol
fr ling legitimate enterprises.
w. d, Brereton testified that he was
the Secretary of the Company at salary
of 81 900 per year, and he was to be
paid in money. He served in the capa.
city for two weeks and then resigned
because he thought he could do better
on the outside. When he resigned he
understood that his subscription to the
capital stock was to be cancelled. He
had received 1925 as Secretary which
amount he had paid to DR.. Griffin.
Postmaster j. M. Green testified that
DR., Griffin had gone to him before the
company had incorporated and told him
that he was going to secure Mr.. 0. w.
Childs as President, and that Mr..
Rowland would take the Vice Presidency.
Witness subscribed for one share, but he
was no longer connected with the COM
pany, having Withdrawn about the time
it was organized. He had notified Dr..
Griffin Of his withdrawal, and was not
aware until Thursday that his name was
being used.
r. Noll testified that he had worked
for the company and had drawn out last
month.
N. Cole had been one of the Directors,
but had resigned his position shortly
after the organization. He had never
received any Of the stock.
DR.. Cohn, recalled, said he had made
two tests altogether of the champagne,
and that there had been difference be-
tween the two. The last wine he ex.
amined was mot the same wine as the
first bottle he examined. He told DR..
Griffin so at the time. The first bottle
he examined had been very good
wine and he had given a certi.
feat to that effect but the specific
gravity Of the second lot was not as
great as the first. It was on account
,Isak H. ID kha that ho
withdrew from the company as Analyst.
just before he resigned he had gone to
the works and had seen the wine made,
and afterward he forbade the doctor to
make use of his name. There was "a part
of the certificate which he had not writ.
ten and which he had not sigued, and
yet his name was attached to it. He
did not certify that the wine would be
equal to any wine imported from Europe,
but he had said that the wine was pure
and unadulterated. He thought other
parties were more to blame than DR..
Griffin in the matter. He went down to
the works to see how the wine was
made, and when he knew what it was,
and the process, he went back and said
to DR.. Griffin: "You don't mean to say
you paid S5O0Ofor that process?" DR..
Griffin said he did pay $4,000 for it, and
witness had told him that he had been
swindled and that the process was
fizzle, swindle. Dr.. Griffin shrugged
his shoulders and said it was too late,
he could not help it.
DR.. Griffin testified that he had first
gone to DR.. Cohn and told him that he
would give him Sl00 to let him know if
the bottle was good wine, and it was on
DR.. Cohn's recommendation that he had
invested his money. He had selected
one bottle Of l02 bottles, the first batch
which was made, and had taken it to
DR.. Cohn who had analyzed it and said
it was good wine. When the certificate
had been written it was not sufficient
and he had taken it in to DR.. Cohn, who
told him to write it as he pleased, and
he had wri tten the words objected to by
DR.. Cohn. and DR.. Cohn had endorsed
them. MIR. Edgerton was present and
saw the addition made. The first batch
of wine was made under the process pur-
chased from Col. Parsons and the second
lot was made under the supervision OF
DR.. Cohn who left ont the boquet which
was used in giving the wine beautiful
favor. DIR. Griffin was satisfied that
the wine was good and that the pro.
cess was all right. He had resigned
from the company, but part of the
machinery was at the depot and part on
the way here. Over $1,000 worth of
machinery had been ordered, and the
company had everything to encourage
it except the Times Of Los Angeles. He
had told Mr.. Church that he would put
his application for his money before the
Board Of Directors, which would meet
in about three weeks, and be could not
pay without the matter going to the
Board, as in every company. He had
paid all the accounts SO far, and after he
had paid the Times it came out and
painted him red. Sooner than have any
one suffer loss he would have
paid the money out of his own
pocket but the Times had published
three articles which had ruined the
company. The first in March had said
the company had "dried up" ard the
article had dried it up. 1t said that the
champagne cost 500 per barrel, when it
was the use of the machinery that cost
that amount. On account of that article
he bad received letters from subscribers
Withdrawing, and he had returned $1,000
to one lady at San Francisco. He had
gone to the editor OF the Times and had
shown his credentials, aud the editor
had apologized in half.hearted way.
The company owed no bills that had
been presented yet. and he was satisfied
that the process was good, and that it
would have been success.
Continued until 10 o'clock this morn.
ing.